I have tested plasma based reactor for longer period of time.. Results are clear. Unfortunately the power that is under the lid is so strong I will probably not continue in this area. Reactor is emmiting neutrons a few days after the test!

With lithium COP might be exceptionally higher. Very rough estimate is COP of 10-50.
But I am not skilled enough to be absolutely sure about safety which is reason why I will continue with reactors that are more safe. Emmissions (RF, electrons and UV) during the test were so strong that my control circuit was absolutely crazy even that it was 3 meters away – it is unusable.

Now I am playing with dangerous things that are clearly working.

I am afraid, but LENR is not safe as it looked initially. You can make a nuclear reactor with all the things you really don’t want.
Fortunately it can’t get out of control so easily. If power output is limited, you are safe.
But there will be probably always some kind of potentionally harmfull radiation. Fuel and fuel chamber must be very clean from impurities to not get unwanted products.

Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long. You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing, that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly, because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years, everything will be completely different.

His references to Andrea Rossi’s work are interesting because Rossi reported that it was possible to get very active results, but it was important to keep them under control to ensure safe operation. It’s interesting that me356 is reporting the generation of neutrons, which Bob Greenyer also reported in the latest Glowstick test. Mats Lewan reported in his An Impossible Invention book that in one early highly active experiment, neutrons were detected in the neutron detector. See more on that here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/17/neutron-detection-and-the-e-cat/

So then, your assumption there is that -all- of the energy is being released as detectable neutrons? Of course that means there would be no detected excess heat in that case.

Neutrons, if they escape out of the reactor so as to be detectable, would be an unrecoverable energy loss from our point of view as they would not be heating the reactor–and obviously the dynamics of the system show that isn’t so. Worst yet for that previous assumption base is that many fusion pathways do not necessarily make neutrons, such as those involving D-D (neutrons can occasionally occur as one of three possible outcomes of the high energy 4He attempting to stabilize) or 6Li, though reactions involving 7Li can make neutrons which could cause further events with 6Li (using up the released neutron), as can deuterium with tritium. So, one has to determine approximately what fusion mechanisms you want to discuss and model for LENR to decide what a reasonable neutron production rate would be per Watt.

But, let us use some facts and make some comparisons.

The count rate of neutrons we get from the largest nearby and complexly heterogeneous fusion reaction, the sun, is about 0.22 counts/sec on average as detected by instruments on the ISS ( http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/379304/ ), or during a solar flare around 30-148 neutrons per meter^2 per second based on in atmosphere measurements. However, most of the neutrons made by the sun, more than 90% even, are produced due magnetic field accelerated ions interacting with coronal ions through knock-on or charge-exchange nuclear events ( http://www8.nationalacademies.org/SSBSurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=732&parm_type=HDS ). Those are high energy neutrons, as that process does not make the thermal neutrons as detected here; but, we’ll count all neutrons to keep matters simple.

So, if we use the results from the sun as a bench mark, the amount of neutrons per W reaching the ISS is 0.00112-0.00160 neutrons per Watt per second (given the ISS has 14% efficient solar panels that generate 84-120 kW of power). If we use this to extrapolate to the 1 Watt you used to calculate, you would expect 1 detectable neutron event per two hours or so. That is, of course, not considering the shielding the detectors were behind, nor that the proper calculation would have to use the watts reaching the detector from the reactor to compare against rather than the surface output of the reactor, as the inverse square law will scale both–unless you want to assume 1 W was reaching the bubble detector rather 1 W was generated in the reactor.

This agrees pretty well with what was seen by MFMP when in the temperature range of 180-250 C, requiring the LENR reaction was making more neutrons than the ISS receives from the sun per Watt within that reaction range.

Also, fusors take so much energy as they have to greatly heat up to accelerate deuterium ions, but suffer enormous conduction losses through the electrodes which saps that heat away from the deuterium gas. The losses are upwards of five orders of magnitude larger than what they can gain per collision, and is not a problem with fusion itself or the energy released by the fusion, but with the engineering of the method attempting to achieve the conditions that particular mechanism needs to initiate fusion. You unfortunately oversimplified the matter and seemed to forget the basic principle of how fusors work. Of course, the polywell fusor variant may actually be able to make net positive energy–we’ll have to see as that technology develops and tries to overcome the conduction issue. Moreover, fusors intentionally are designed to drive neutron production through clever engineering, particularly so they can be used in hybrid systems (driving fission reactors from with the neutrons), but still never remotely approach your calculations -per watt- by many orders of magnitude (at least by 6 and that is raw theoretical production and not useable/detectable production).

Overall, the picture is way more complicated than your calculations (impossible ones at that, as most fusion energy is NOT released as neutrons) suggest, and at least when compared with the sun, the MFMP neutron results are pretty similar on a per watt basis. That can help us to determine what mechanisms could possibly be in play (7Li?) and allow further experiments to disprove or not those hypotheses.

Finally, the rate of neutron production will depend directly on the percentage of reactions that are done by pathways that make neutrons and what share of the energy release those neutrons carry away, how quickly the neutron escapes (it has 14 minutes before it beta decays), avoidance of further reactions such as with 14N in the air or with any other element in the reactor fuel and reactor body, how well it gets through the lead and other shielding MFMP had up, and then of course having to deal with the inverse square law for the distance of the detector compared to the area of the detector and probability to interact with a supercritical fluid droplet. Fun stuff.

Bernie Koppenhofer

What! Who is “pooh – poohing” safety, I am simply quoting Rossi from two days ago:

Andrea Rossi

May 9, 2016 at 3:33 PM

LookMoo:

This is why we need to gain a safety certification.

We already got the safety certification for the industrial plants and we are close to obtain the safety certification for the domestic, I think.

The reason is that all the measurements made on out e-Cats during their operation have never detected ionizing radiations outside the E-Cats.

The measurements of the ionizing radiations around our E-Cats have been also made by professional experts of the matter.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

And:

Andrea Rossi

May 9, 2016 at 9:50 AM

James Rovnak:

We made permanent monitoring on the matter and never detected any neutron emission outside the E-Cat beyond the background, above the margin of error of the instrumentation.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Private Citizen

“And we should from now on also stop using barbecues. ”

Or garage mechanics dealing with gas tanks containing 15 times the energy density of TNT, or folks wiring home electric systems capable of frying one dead in seconds.

Safety card is a bit bogus. Assume, anticipate the risks and take precautions if you venture into tinkering.

http://lenrftw.net LENR G

In me356’s words:
“And the very simple reason (but not just this) why I don’t intend to reveal any data IMMEDIATELY, that I don’t want to be a next Parkhomov. He written detailed reports, but still it was not enough for mass replication. Then he was discredited as all others for being fraud, etc. He is receiving endlessly messages with many questions. So it was a big mistake for him and I doubt he will ever do this again.”

me356’s most recent posts on LENR Forum help explain his approach. He sincerely wants to get this technology out to the world but fears the personal destruction that comes along with it (he references Parkhomov as an example of jumping too soon).

So he wants bulletproof/repeatable and he wants to remain anonymous to protect his quality of life.

In light of this it is likely he will choose MFMP as the mechanism of sharing his knowledge. There is already a connection and MFMP is perfectly positioned to help him reach his goals. If he can teach Greenyer next week what works and what doesn’t, MFMP will start seeing significant, verifiable excess heat and possibly particles within weeks. Then there will be a cycle of triple-checking and refinement.

And then it’ll be out.

Private Citizen

Too late, me357 already claimed to have a surefire way to trigger LENR at will, thus pulling a Parkamov.

He could just openly say, here is exactly what I’m doing and it seems to be producing a lot of excess energy: you try it–AND BE CAREFUL!.

Instead he is acting more like Rossi than Parkamov (which is his choice if his aim is other than open science). Hopefully if he connects with MFMP, we will see some actual data and details of the mechanism.

Haven’t read his latest posts, so perhaps he already is revealing all, in which case, that’s all one can ask.

http://lenrftw.net LENR G

He is already diverging from Rossi’s behavior by ostensibly agreeing to meet with Bob Greenyer of MFMP.

However if that amounts to nothing, we get no paper or disclosure and the posts claiming wild success continue for weeks bleeding into months then I think it’d be safe to say we would be approaching Rossi behavior. Let’s let this play out and see what happens before condemning the guy.

People vouch for him and he’s been relatively open about his experiments going back for quite awhile. If he’s another scammer ( ? ) then his set up has been elaborate and well planned. I think he’s obviously legit and will eventually disperse his knowledge on his terms. He is right to be cautious, I think.

psi2u2

Good thinking all around.

Rene

That is an interesting conspiracy theory.

Steve Swatman

If you think of that as a conspiracy theory you should take off the tin foil hat you are wearing, business is a tough world, big business is even harder, when a large corporation invests 10’s of billions of dollars in the future, spending another couple of billion to stop a rival is “just standard practice”.

Axil Axil

If LENR removes ionizing radiation from every interaction between a particle or clusters of particles and the environment, what does that imply for our understanding of nuclear physics and allied fields?

I wonder what the interaction between neutrons and living tissue is when gamma radiation is removed from that interaction? If the isotope of carbon changes in a cell from 12 to 13, is that harmful. If the neutron count of iron in the blood is increased by one, if that harmful?

Without ionizing radiation, does isotopic change adversely affect an organism?

If test equipment that is designed to detect ionization from neutrons does not see that ionization, does that failure to detect that radiation mean that no neutrons were produced?

Without ionizing radiation, it might be that particle vaporization tracks in a supersaturated medium are the only detection method that can see neutrons produced by LENR.

Andreas Moraitis

Neutron capture leads to radioactive decay in case that the resulting nucleus is unstable. If the neutron is not captured but inelastically scattered the target nucleus gets excited and emits gammas when it returns to its ground state.

In addition, not all isotopes (even stable ones) are biologically compatible. For example, organisms do not work with heavy water due its slightly different chemical properties.

I am hearing amateurs should not experiment, “even if it does work, and it doesn’t, experimenting might release life threatening neutrons, so amateurs should not experiment.” and “Do not experiment any where near your family” And then we have Rossi on the subject today, “We made permanent monitoring on the matter and never detected any neutron emission outside the E-Cat beyond the background, above the margin of error of the instrumentation.”

Dave Lawton

I have to agree with Rossi.It is just background.The only thing to fear is fear.I spent my youth crawling on my belly underneath beamlines of a proton synchrotron to fix our particle detectors while the machine was running.I`m still alive today.And there was a lot of radiation about.

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

@me356 is planning another “high cop” experiment this week:

I hope that next week will show some more fruits as my new reactor is finished. This one might be candidate for 3-5kW prototype (note that heater can output just around 1kW).
It looks very differently than any other I have built previously. There should be nearly no heat loss. My hopes are that it can run for at least week with excess heat.
You can take it, plug it into system in notime and start it – can produce excess heat in 5-10 minutes. If this is true, we will see.

Bob G said that he would visit me356 next week – so we might get some preliminary information soon. I think that independent testing or a replication attempt by MFMP will follow.

Private Citizen

Good luck and great success to me356. Looking forward to open scientific confirmation of LENR.

Rene

Disagree, examples cited. Feel free to look through the body of product literature.

Rene

Wasn’t talking about exploding. The cadmium will kill you with virulent cancer. The lithium will kill a person if they swallow it. The point is that things that are intrinsically unsafe can be made into safe. It doesn’t matter how something will kill you or cause you great harm. What matters is how can those attributes be isolated or controlled to make a safe product. That process is called engineering.

Axil Axil

There has been something that has been bugging me for months now. Now, it is time to vent.

How can we know what kinds of particles are being produced by the LENR reaction. For example, Holmlid states that he is producing a boatload of neutral particles but little or no neutrons.

How can we tell the difference between a neutral particle and a neutron of the same energy. First of all, what are neutral particles and where do they come from?

These fragments of molecules are most likely pieces of metalized hydrogen that have been blasted apart by nuclear reactions that have been catalyzed by the LENR reaction. These are ions that have been neutralized but still have lots of kinetic energy that have been imparted to these molecular fragments by LENR reactions.

These fragments are far larger than neutrons and cannot enter into the nuclei of atoms to form unstable isotopes. So the difference in the behavior of these two neutral particles: neutrons and neutral particles are as follows:

They both will look the same on a bubble detector.

The neutral particle might produce a gamma when it hits reactor structure but it might not if the LENR reaction is suppressing gamma.

We want to shield both types of particles from entering the body but the shielding is different. Neutrons are far more penetrating because they are smaller.

The neutron will be absorbed by reactor structure and will produce gamma when the resulting unstable isotope emits gamma radiation at a later time. This is called activation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation

“Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induces radioactivity in materials, and occurs when atomic nuclei capture free neutrons, becoming heavier and entering excited states. The excited nucleus often decays immediately by emitting gamma rays, or particles such as beta particles, alpha particles, fission products and neutrons (in nuclear fission). Thus, the process of neutron capture, even after any intermediate decay, often results in the formation of an unstable activation product. Such radioactive nuclei can exhibit half-lives ranging from small fractions of a second to many years.”

If Me356 does not see gamma during his run, he is being protected by the LENR radiation shield. But is he sees gammas long after the test are over when the gamma shield has dissipated, those neutral particles might not be neutrons.

What makes neutrons dangerous is the long lasting activation based radiation that remains over a long period of time when the unstable isotopes are being stabilized. If Me356 is not seeing latent radiation from neutron activation, then those particles MIGHT be neutral particles.

LENR is a new type of nuclear reaction so much work still needs to be done to evaluate what types of subatomic and molecular particles are being generated. MFMP et al has this definition as its highest priority, IMHO.

———————————————–
me356 responds as follows:

axil: I fully agree with you and I admit it is possible. Each experiment is little bit different because of design and other techniques.

The latest experiment generated high neutron flux while no measurable gamma.

Although I have measured neutrons for a few times when reactor was turned off (for period of days) after such period reactors are always clean and nothing seems to be activated.

But a lot of investigation is needed.

http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

I’d like to learn more about “Neutral” particles.

Zephir

/* How can we tell the difference between a neutral particle and a neutron of the same energy */

Easily, neutrons make everything radioactive for weeks after experiments, as me356 observed

/* They both will look the same on a bubble detector. */

Molecules wouldn’t pass the wall of bubble detector.

Axil Axil

“Easily, neutrons make everything radioactive for weeks after experiments, as me356 observed”

Show that quate to me. I say that you just made this fact up.

Zephir

You’re not paying me enough for it.

Axil Axil

How much is your credibility worth?

Axil Axil

“Molecules wouldn’t pass the wall of bubble detector.”

A hydrogen atom will pass through glass easily.

Stephen

Axil its a good point about the permeability of Hydrogen atoms.

I wonder if small pieces of Holmlid’s, H(0) and D(0) would be even more permeable? Bearing in mind the very close spacing of the nuclei 2.3 pm of in this state would small pieces of H0 or D0 be comparable in size or even smaller maybe than a typical H atom? I think He for example which has 2 protons with 2 orbital electrons is even smaller and more permeable than atomic H.

If so I have some wild speculations, some of which you may be in line with ideas you have already considered and mentioned and am interested in your thoughts.

I suppose pieces of H(0) and D(0) could look bit like a heavy neutron in some detectors too if ejected? I wonder if this would be the case across different kinds of detectors though. But perhaps normal neutrons are also produced.

I suppose this could explain the heavy neutral particles seen by Holmlid if they occur?

I wonder if they could be detected if they look like Neutrons to other materials. For example maybe to particles with high neutron cross-sections such as Boron 10 but produce different daughter products than expected?

On the other hand maybe they could be triggered to normal RM such as H(1) or D(1) or maybe even normal H2 gas after interacting with other matter. If we see much less activation of other particles than expected this might be a possible explanation. It would also be quite a good and safe outcome, if these heavy neutral particles become inherently safe.

Do we know if H(0) or D(0) would chemically interact and disintegrate in water or an oxygenated atmosphere? If so maybe this is why they are not observed in the e-cat?

If instead of disintegrating, pieces of H(0) and D(0) are captured in water that could be interesting too. If they can be collected that way and released following evaporation of the water it could be a useful way to collect H(0) and D(0) particles. Who knows what applications that material can have even outside the field of LENR. I can imagine all kinds of Nano tech devices, plasmonics, LENR on a chip applications, fuel storage and shielding making use of it in some way?

Did I hear Randell Mills is able to collect and store his “Hydrinos” some how? Could this material in fact be H(0) and D(0) matter rather than his classic Hydrinos?

I wonder what a spectral signature would be of this kind of material. I suppose the usual quantum mechanical orbitals would be changed quite a lot form normal Hydrogen.

Mats002

Agree. We accept cars and cigarettes in our society and have calculated the risk for injury and death. We accept them. I don’t accept hot nuclear because damage can be so much wider. Cold nuclear is within acceptable limits I believe.

US_Citizen71

Are you seriously expecting to be taken seriously with a just created Discus account? Seriously?

“Are you seriously comparing the radiation from a nuclear reaction to that of a light bulb?” – Sure why not? Anything can be compared, it is the basis of this thing called science.